For the purposes of this thread only, I am going to propose a few rigid definitions. I am not proposing these definitions in the hopes of getting into a Semantics argument, but rather so that I can use these terms to express my ideas and everyone can know exactly what I mean by these terms:
Selfish Acts:
Acts which, by definition, are designed only to fulfill the needs or wants of the individual. In order to qualify as a selfish act; the needs or wants of the individual may be the only motivator for commiting the act, but that does not necessarily mean that others cannot be benefitted as an unintended consequence.
Unintended Consequence:
An Unintended Consequence is simply a consequence of an action that exists outside of the reasons for which the action was committed. Unintended Consequences can be both positive or negative for the person who experiences the Unintended Consequence. An Unintended Consequence exists separately of an Unknown Consequence because the person committing the act may have known that the Unintended Consequence would come to pass.
Unknown Consequence:
A consequence that cannot reasonably be known or predicted, obviously this also constitutes an Unintended Consequence.
Self-Interest:
An act that satisifes the self in some regard. Self-Interest can be a primary, secondary, or consciously unknown Motivator for an action.
Altruistic Act:
A theoretical action that is made only for someone outside of the self, or in the alternative, a self-sacrificing action.
It has been argued that selfish acts, strictly speaking, are the most rational because they are acts that have the singular objective of furthering the needs/wants of the individual committing the act. However, while it is occasionally rational, in terms of survival, to commit a selfish act (If two people are starving, for example, you might beat the other person to death and eat them so that you may continue to survive) when first order needs are consistently satisfied, selfish acts are not always the most rational in every case.
For example, when all of our immediate biological needs are consistently met, we then have the opportunity to develop as social beings. We can begin stregthening our families, which turn into clans, then tribes, then cities, then states, then all out Governments which should theoretically exist for the purpose of ensuring that first-order needs are met for as many individuals as possible falling within that Governmental body.
If everyone that had their first-order needs met acted in a purely selfish way, the result would be unqualified Anarchy. Unqualified Anarchy simply refers to a, “True,” Anarchy in which it is every individual for his/her self. An extreme example of what would happen in an unqualified Anarchy that came as a result of people behaving in a purely selfish way is that people would not feed their children. The reason that they would not feed their children is because it would require them to allocate first-order resources that they themselves have procured, and give those resources to an individual that could not themselves procure them.
Therefore, we can disregard any argument that selfish acts are inherently and consistently the most rational because, if they were, the human race would have not survived to this point because people would not allocate first-order resources to their children, who would therefore die of starvation.
Given that this is the case, we then know that not every act can be selfish, but can every act be taken in one’s own self-interest?
The previous point that people allocate first-order resources to someone other than themselves illustrates that people do not behave in a purely selfish manner constantly. Certainly, some people behave in a purely selfish manner more than others can be taken as a given, and whether or not behaving selfishly is the MOST rational action in any given scenario is case-by-case.
However, the question still remains, do all people act according to their own self-interest, or can, ‘true’ Altruism be rightfully said to exist?
In exploring this question, we can look at a number of different examples of an individual behaving with varying degrees of Altruism on the surface, and perhaps Altruism is a primary motivator, but a case can always be made that Self-Interest is a secondary, or occasionally unconscious Motivator.
Imagine if I am eating some kind of dessert and, to this point, I have not had so much to eat that I am at any risk of getting a stomach ache. For some reason, I think that this dessert is fantastic, so I might take the following actions:
Selfish Act: Eat it all.
Somewhat Altruistic Act: Offer some (Less than half) of the dessert to whoever you are with.
Very Altruistic Act: Offer some amount half or more, but less than all of it, to whoever you are with.
Purely Altruistic Act: Offer all of it to whoever you are with.
Most people know someone who would act in the most selfish way possible which is to enjoy the dessert and not share any of it with whoever they are dining with, unless they are given something in return. In a sense, this is the most immediately rational act possible because the person likes the dessert and has plenty of room for it, so why should the person want to give it away?
The somewhat Altruistic Act of giving some of it to someone, on the surface, does not seem to be a self-interested act because the self is being deprived of some amount of the dessert that it reasonably could handle. However, although the act cannot be construed as purely selfish, it is self-interested. The act effectively builds or strengthens a social bond by allowing someone to (provided they like it) experience the same qualitative pleasure from the dessert that you do. This act also fosters conversation about the piece of dessert because to talk about how great the dessert is without offering any could be considered rude, depending on who you are with.
Therefore, such an act would be Somewhat Altruistic on the surface, but most assuredly self-interested below the surface because it fosters a social relationship which benefits the self (company) and alleviates any potential feelings of guilt for not sharing the cake. There’s also the possibility that someone may return the favor to you at a later time, but that would just as likely be a Self-Interested Unconscious Motivator. Finally, there may be a feeling of pride/satisfaction from committing a generous act.
Everything said regarding a somewhat Altruistic Act can be applied to a Very Altruistic Act just to a larger degree. The one exception being that this act might be more, not less, overtly Self-Interested because in this scenario a person would be making a point of what they are doing, they would feel a sense of extreme pride based on their own superior generosity.
The Most Altruistic Act doesn’t really make any sense unless your company happens to be starving. If you were to happen on a starving person and give them whatever is left of your delicious dessert, though, the act could be Self-Interested in that it is an alleviation of the guilt you might feel for letting the person starve, and for having in abundance where another has next to nothing in the first place. It is also self-interested in the sense that an individual may feel a sense of pride or accomplishment for committing what is, primarily, an Altruistic Act.
My main focus here is going to be my assertion that no possible act that a person can commit, even theoretically, can be construed as wholly Altruistic. Therefore, every act a person can possibly make is a Self-Interested Act in one way or another, because obviously, a Selfish Act would also constitute a Self-Interested Act.